Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 14, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003176
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Zonix Group Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of 6-storey and 27-storey residential buildings to contain a total of 533 units
Reference Number: 19 114290
Property Address: 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 & 48 Steeles Avenue East and 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47 & 49 Highland Park Avenue
Municipality/UT: Markham/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003176
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003176
OLT Case Name: Zonix Group Inc. v. Markham (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Zonix Group Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of 6-storey and 27-storey residential buildings to contain a total of 533 units
Reference Number: 19 114290
Property Address: 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46 & 48 Steeles Avenue East and 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47 & 49 Highland Park Avenue
Municipality/UT: Markham/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003178
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003176
Heard: February 6, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Zonix Group Inc.
Rodney Gill David Bronskill (in absentia)
City of Markham
Maggie Cheung-Madar
City of Toronto
Ray Kallio Adam Ward
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON FEBRUARY 6, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) with respect to appeals under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Zonix Group Inc. (“Appellant”) from the failure of the City of Markham (“Markham”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframes on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“Applications”) with respect to lands known municipally as (“Subject Lands”):
a. 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, and 48 Steeles Avenue East in Markham; and
b. 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, and 49 Highland Park Boulevard in Markham.
2The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate a proposal by the Appellant to permit the development of two residential buildings, one 6-storeys and one 27-storeys, containing a total of 533 units (“Proposed Development”).
3At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed Counsel who confirmed that there was no issue with service of Notice of the CMC. As such, no further notice is required. The Affidavit of Service of Notice of CMC, sworn by Linda Roberts on December 30, 2022, is marked as Exhibit 1.
STATUS REQUESTS
4The statutory Parties to this appeal are the Appellant and Markham.
5The Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating a number of Party and Participant Status Requests.
6The City of Toronto (“Toronto”) attended the CMC. The Subject Lands are located on the north-east corner of Steeles Avenue East and Dudley Avenue. Steeles Avenue is the dividing line between Markham and Toronto, which is why Toronto attended the CMC. Toronto had not submitted a Status Request prior to the CMC, but sought Party Status at the CMC. Neither the Appellant nor Markham objected to this request. Moreover, Toronto had already been in communication with the Parties and, prior to the CMC, provided them with some issues to be added to the Issues List. Upon hearing submissions from Counsel, and receiving no objection from the Parties, the Tribunal granted Party Status to Toronto, as it has an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in making a determination on the issues.
7Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal received Participant Status requests from the following:
a. Kwang Hoon Shin, who raised concerns with overdevelopment of the area, imposition on privacy of the current residents, traffic, crowds, and a decrease in property values and life quality of the residents in the area;
b. Edmund Pamatat, who raised concerns on behalf of his elderly mother living in the area, and specifically with respect to shadow issues, privacy concerns, increase in traffic, increase in costs and discomfort, and a decrease in the desirability of the area as a single-family residential living location;
c. Behzad Fazel, who raised concerns that the proposal was premature, the development was ill-planned, significant traffic would result in the area, the current single-family dwellings would no longer be habitable, issues with noise and dust from construction, and a decrease in property values; and
d. Christopher, Donald, and Helen Fong, who collectively submitted one request and raised concerns with shadowing and sunlight implications, traffic, and a decrease in the desirability of their current residential neighbourhood and the overall enjoyment of their home.
8The Tribunal found that the individuals who had requested Participant Status had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the Proposed Development on the local community. Moreover, the Parties did not object to any of the requests. As such, the Tribunal granted Participant Status to those listed above.
9In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received no other requests for status (Party or Participant).
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
10The Parties produced a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), which was reviewed at the CMC.
11As Toronto was added as a Party at the CMC, the Parties advised that they required some time to revise and update the PO and IL to include Toronto’s issues in the IL. Moreover, Toronto had not yet reviewed the draft PO.
12The Appellant undertook to revise and re-submit, on or before February 21, 2023, for the Tribunal’s approval, a revised PO and IL in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions and any agreement made amongst the Parties. The Appellant has now provided the PO and IL.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
13The Tribunal raised the issue of opportunities for settlement discussions, including the use of Tribunal-assisted mediation. The Parties advised that they intended to discuss settlement amongst themselves, but they are not in a position, at this stage, to engage in such discussions with the formal assistance of the Tribunal. They further advised that they remain open to the possibility of a settlement at some point in the future and are aware of the availability of mediation.
14The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the hearing and, should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.
HEARING DETAILS
15Given the number of parties and potential issues, the Tribunal agreed that a five (5) day hearing was sufficient. Accordingly, a video hearing will commence at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 6, 2023 until Friday, November 10, 2023 for five (5) days.
16Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
17The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video as follows:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541
Access Code: 638 422 541
18Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
19Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
20Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. The City of Toronto is now a Party to these proceedings.
b. The following are now Participants in these proceedings: Kwang Hoon Shin, Edmund Pamatat, Behzad Fazel, and Christopher / Donald / Helen Fong collectively as one entity.
c. The Procedural Order and Issues List, attached as Schedule A to this Decision, shall govern the proceedings.
d. The hearing in this matter will commence on Monday, November 6, 2023 at 10 a.m., by video conference, and five (5) days have been set aside.
22There will be no further notice.
23The Member is not seized, but may be available for case management, should procedural issues arise and scheduling permit.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1